Cooperative Collection Management Survey

1
Cooperative Collection Management Survey

• ARL Membership Meeting
• October 19, 2006
• Chip Nilges
• Vice President, New Services
• OCLC
• Chip_nilges_at_oclc.org

2
Survey Objectives

• Understand current practice
• Collection management
• Remote storage
• Digitization
• Evaluate 3 service concepts
• Registry reports
• Resource sharing
• Shared storage digitization

3
Methodology

• Web-based survey with 500 OCLC governing member
  Academic, ARL, and Public libraries
• 204 libraries completed survey (response
  rate41)
• Report focuses on the Academic library and ARL
  respondents results

4
Collection Management

• Half of the Academic library respondents use
  collection analysis tools.
• Users tend to have more than 1 million items in
  collection (68).
• These users employ several tools.

5
Cooperative Collection Development Groups

• More than one-third of Academic library
  respondents belong to a cooperative collection
  development group.
• Here are a few of the groups
• CRL Cooperative Collection Development Group
• CARLI
• CARL

6
Remote Storage

• One-third of Academic library respondents move
  materials into remote storage.
• Most move materials into storage due to
• Lack of space (91)
• Lack of circulation (81)

7
Storage Filling Up

• More than half of Academic library respondents
  have more than two-thirds of their storage full.
• Stored items are used
• Most respondents (81) circulate stored items but
  facility is not open to patrons.
• Most respondents (84) make most stored items
  available for ILL

8

Where are your librarys storage facilities
located? (N32)
9
Digitization

• Half of Academic library respondents digitize
  materials.
• Most respondents who digitize process archival
  materials (84).
• During 2005, digitization activity increased for
  more than half of respondents (55).

10
3 Service Concepts

• Concept A Registry Reports
• Create a shared database of collections in
  storage
• Offer tools and reports for comparing stored
  collections across institutions/groups
• Libraries could use this information to inform
  their collection development decisions

11
Investigate 3 Concepts

• Concept B Resource Sharing
• In addition to all services associated with
  concept A, participating libraries would also be
  able to . . .
• indicate the following for the items that they
  register
• preservation policies
• lending policies at item level
• use this database to borrow items from other
  libraries

12
Investigate 3 Concepts

• Concept C Shared storage, preservation,
  digitization
• In addition to all services described in Concept
  B . . .
• Participating libraries could agree to send their
  selected items to an off-site, independent
  organization for storage, preservation access.
• The independent organization would identify
  candidate for central storage based on ILL and
  circulation data.
• The independent organization would provide
  delivery service for all stored items.
• Where it has the rights to do so, the independent
  organization would digitize heavily requested
  items.

13
Investigate 3 Concepts

• Concepts are in the early stages of development
  and no pricing was available to test in the
  questionnaire.
• Without pricing, respondents could not be asked
  to evaluate their likelihood to subscribe to each
  concept.
• Respondents were asked to rate how desirable the
  concept would be to their library by using a
  scale that ranged from "0" (Not At All Desirable)
  to "10" (Very Desirable).

14
Concept Evaluations
Top Box
Note Top box score analyzes the percent of
respondents who indicate a score of 8 or higher.
15
Preferred Concept

• Without knowing price, half of Academic library
  respondents prefer Concept C.
• In open-ended question, respondents stated why
  prefer concepts
• Digitizes items for preservation
• Provides document delivery
• Provides remote storage

16
Conclusions

• Half of Academic library respondents are involved
  in collection management and digitization.
• Two-fifths are using remote storage which is
  filling up.
• Community seems ready for cooperative collection
  management service.
• Additional market research is recommended on 3
  concepts to determine feasibility of service.
• OCLC next steps include supporting concepts A and
  B

17
National Storage Trust NetworkConcept A Ad Hoc
Shared Information
Borrowing System
ILL
ILL
Storage Facility
Retrieval
Registry
Nonparticipating Library
Participating Library
Policies
Holdings
Collection analysis reports
Collection analysis reports
WIthdrawals
WIthdrawals

• Participating libraries provide data on stored
  holdings and access policies
• Participating and nonparticipating libraries may
  analyze collections compared to registry
• Libraries make independent local decisions about
  acquisition, retention, digitization, storage
• Assume individual local risk

18
National Storage Trust NetworkConcept B
Cooperative Management
Borrowing System
Priority loans
ILL
Shared Virtual Collection
Storage Facility
Commitments
Retrieval
Registry
Nonparticipating Library
Participating Library
Policies
Holdings
Collection analysis reports
Collection analysis reports
WIthdrawals
WIthdrawals

• In addition to providing data on holdings and
  access policies, participating libraries make
  preservation and access commitments to fellow
  participants
• Libraries make local decisions in the context of
  mutual collection management policies

19
National Storage Trust NetworkConcept C
Federated Collection Management
Borrowing System
Priority loans
ILL
Shared Preservation Collections
Storage Facility
Federation Coordinator(s)
Retrieval
Registry
Commitments and Policies
Participating Library
Nonparticipating Library
Holdings
Collection analysis reports
Collection analysis reports
WIthdrawals
WIthdrawals

• Independent entities administer collection
  analysis and preservation responsibilities to
  achieve system-wide benefits
• Libraries cede some control to the network in
  return for greater stability of the system